Estranged techie couple reunites, but police spoil party
After filing a dowry harassment case against the husband, the wife returned to him. Four months ago, she gave it in writing that she wants to withdraw the charges, but the cops are yet to close the case
February 05, 2011
It could well read like a script of a chick flick, but it’s for real and it’s the police who are spoiling the plot. Sushma Dubey, a techie, had separated from her husband, Sanjay Ranjan, also a techie. On the advice of her sister, she filed a dowry harassment case (498A) against her husband. Sushma did not know all the details and merely signed the papers prepared by her sister.
But soon after, her sister left her to fend for herself. Left alone, Sushma had a complete change of heart. She is now happily reunited with her husband, but the Banashankari Division police are refusing to close the case against Sanjay.
Sanjay and Sushma, both working in multi-national companies, came to know each other through a social networking site. They were married in November 2009, and all was well for a few months. Cracks in their marriage began to appear in March last year.
“Little things led to arguments and misunderstanding,” Sanjay told media. “She then went to live with her sister, but came back again. It went on like this until June, when she went away again to live with her sister. She then filed a dowry harassment case against me. But I had obtained anticipatory bail. I learnt that she had filed the case on the advice of her brother-in-law and sister. I had asked Sushma if she understood the seriousness of the case, but her answer was vague and I realised she was not aware of the charges brought against me.”
Sanjay had tried pleading with her, but Sushma, brainwashed by her sister and her brother-in-law, refused to see reason. “I begged her to drop the case and come back to me. I was sure she loved me and we could be a happy couple again. But realising that she was being guided by her relatives, I stopped trying.”
But, Sushma was soon turned out from her sister’s house. Tired of repeated queries from inquisitive neighbours and friends about Sushma, her sister asked her to leave. She moved into a paying guest facility and stayed there for three months. Meanwhile, her friends made her understand the seriousness of the case she had filed against Sanjay and the punishment it entailed. Penitent, Sushma decided to go back to her husband. Returning to the same social networking site through which they had first met, Sushma requested Sanjay to take her back. Aided by friends and elders in the family, the two were soon reunited.
Sushma told media, “I wish I can just erase the whole thing from my memory. While staying alone, I realised that I had made a mistake. I am very happy now. My husband is really a nice man and loves me a lot. We are the happiest couple.”
Following their reunion, the couple visited the Banashankari police station to get the case withdrawn. Initially, the cops told Sushma that a written statement requesting withdrawal of the case would be sufficient. Four months have gone by
since she filed the statement, but the police are yet to close the case.
“We have gone to them many times and also contacted them over phone, but to no avail,” Sanjay said. “We want the case closed. Both of us have already suffered enough, but the police are making us suffer more.”
Kumar V Jahgirdar, president of CRISP, a pro-family organisation to which the couple had gone to for advice, told media, “I know the parties personally. They had approached our NGO for reconciliation. “The wife genuinely regretted her mistake. She was misguided by certain people.”
When media contacted H T Ramesh, assistant commissioner of police, Banashankari division, he said, “I do not know the details of the case. So, I cannot comment specifically on it. But, if the husband and the wife have settled their differences and want the case closed, the police should support them.
“I do not know why the police have not closed the case despite them filing the required statements. I will look into the matter.”
(Names of the couple have been changed)